People v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Levy

140 A.D.2d 630, 528 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Levy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Levy, 140 A.D.2d 630, 528 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court properly allowed the complainant to describe the perpetrator’s appearance at the time of the crime. The complainant’s recollection of the perpetrator’s appearance during the gunpoint robbery was relevant to the issue of identification and did not constitute improper bolstering of his identification of the defendant in court (see, People v Sanders, 108 AD2d 316, affd 66 NY2d 906; People v Riviello, 111 AD2d 878, 879).

Furthermore, although the prosecutor should not have inquired as to the description which the robbery victim gave to the police, this single isolated question did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial is not warranted (see, People v Osuna, 65 NY2d 822; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The trial court properly allowed the complainant to describe the perpetrator’s appearance at the time of the crime. The complainant’s recollection of the perpetrator’s appearance during the gunpoint robbery was relevant to the issue of identification and did not constitute improper bolstering of his identification of the defendant in court (see, People v Sanders, 108 AD2d 316, affd 66 NY2d 906; People v Riviello, 111 AD2d 878, 879).

Furthermore, although the prosecutor should not have inquired as to the description which the robbery victim gave to the police, this single isolated question did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial is not warranted (see, People v Osuna, 65 NY2d 822; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 630, 528 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-levy-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack